Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunbar
I worry more about a disaster at the first turn. 20 horses are trying to get a position that does not leave them either hopelessly outside or, especially in the case of the inside 3 or 4, squeezed back behind a wall of flying dirt. And with so much at stake, the riders are likely to take chances. I hold my breath every year.
IMO, the entries should be reduced to 14. It would make it a little more likely that the best horse would win the race. More importantly, it would make a catastrophic event much less likely.
Here are the horses that would not have made the race this year, had the limit been 14:
15. Free Drop Billy 44 (Albaugh Family) Dale Romans/Robby Albarado ($597,200)
16. Lone Sailor 42 (G M B Racing) Tom Amoss/James Graham ($273,347)
17. Hofburg 40 (Juddmonte) Bill Mott/Irad Ortiz Jr. ($192,000)
18. Firenze Fire 39 (Mr. Amore Stable) Jason Servis/Paco Lopez ($647,500)
19. Combatant 32 (Winchell, Willis Horton) Steve Asmussen/Ricardo Santana ($350,000)
20. Instilled Regard 29 (Oxo Equine/Larry Best) Jerry Hollendorfer/Joel Rosario ($246,000)
Do these horses belong in a race that includes Justify, Mendelssohn, Audible, Bolt D'Oro, Magnum Moon, Good Magic, and the rest of the top 9 or 10 point earners? Sure, one or more of horses 15-20 could make a big jump forward and finish in the top 5 of the Derby, but the downside far outweighs that slim possibility, IMO.
|
There are many people who like one of thoses horses (at least 15, 16, 17) to hit the board. Beyond that, would Giacomo or Mind That Bird have made the filed at 14?
Traffic on the first turn is a legit concern, but less so in a race with real pace--they string out in time with pace. And most years there is enough pace to avoid that.
Aside from the Debty (20) and Preakness (16), are there other stakes races in the US or Canada run with bigger fields than 14? My old brain refuses to remember.